This thread is so painfully depressing. I don't know if I can address all the ridiculous "issues" brought up here but hopefully I'll cover the major ones, starting with the opening post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychologist
Ah, the classic argument against Theism is a classic example of a type of flawed attempt at critical reasoning.
In the first place, God is God. He is omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then he is not God.
To be discredit the argument “God created the world and no one/thing created God because he is the starting point” properly means you HAVE to understand one thing first- that God is omnipotent.
If you counter that argument by asking who created God, that shows you do not understand the implications of “omnipotence”, which makes your counter argument as null as a red herring.
|
Do
you understand the implications of omnipotence? There's nothing about it that precludes the notion of origins or even the necessity of one. It looks like you're assuming implications that suit your preconceptions where no such implications exist. Exemplify your point!
Quote:
No balls are caught! If you want to discredit an argument, you have to understand the source of the argument (i.e. its implied meaning/premise) and attack that.
This means attacking the concept of omnipotence, not throwing a question that is not applicable back to a question!
What kind of logic is that?
|
That's a question you should be asking yourself!
I'm not sure why it is you bring up the subject of omnipotence. The argument you describe is the
Cosmological argument and it's based on the notion of
causality. The idea is that all things need a cause and you can't have an endless chain of causes so there must have been an initial cause and that cause is God. There are many objections to this argument and omnipotence is not a defense to any of them. "Who created God" questions why it is you think that God is the "uncaused cause." If you're convinced that there had to be an uncaused cause then why couldn't it be the
Big Bang? At least we can show evidence that
that exists!
Quote:
So anyway, if you want to logically think about it, you CANNOT counter that argument that God exists precisely because of the existence of the very-hard-to-disprove point of God’s omnipotence.
How are you going to disprove omnipotence? Asking me to prove omnipotence? I can’t do that.
|
Is your argument that you can't prove omnipotence and therefore you shouldn't be expected to? Well, I agree with that but I'd also add that no one should be convinced by your lack of argument as well...
It is not our position to have to disprove every crazy idea that comes our way. If you have a claim then support it!
Quote:
If you are going to use the argument:
“If God created an unmovable rock, and if God is omnipotent, can he move that rock?”
Then I will say that it is a paradox and an impossibility because you have limited God’s omnipotence (by questioning his capability of doing everything including the impossible).
The reasoning goes this way:
1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
2) If he can do anything, he can create a rock which he cannot lift
3) If he cannot lift that rock which he created, then he cannot do anything and he is not omnipotent
4) If he can lift that rock which he created, then he has not created a rock that he cannot lift
5) If he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent
The catch in this reasoning is at point #2. This sort of reasoning is aimed to show impossibility by providing impossibility in the existence of rock-which-cannot-be-lifted-by-him itself.
If he is omnipotent, he can do anything, but how can he make something he cannot do?
But essentially, this is a very vague argument because it blurs the line between the real premise that needs to be clarified against the pseudo arguments.
If we have arrived at a logical paradox, we are only left to analyse its soundness.
Consider premise 1: If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
What is “anything”?
Is this “anything” simply –anything- that consists of everything and nothing or is this “anything” something that can be done or has a slight chance of being done?
If we were to argue from a logical, wordly point of view, then it would be the latter, because if we want to argue the merits of the plausibility of a situation, we have to work with something that can be used, that means to say, something that is a possibility instead of an impossibility.
Agree?
|
The problem is the simplistic notion of omnipotence. That word is typically used in a specific context so that such contradictions don't happen. For instance, when we say that
Kim Jong-Il is omnipotent, we mean that he can do anything politically in South Korea. There is no contradiction to be constructed there. However, when theists say that God is omnipotent, they literally mean that he can do anything. When you apply this idea to things that are logically impossible then, not surprisingly, thing make no sense...
Now, it looks like you're willing to limit the powers of God to be something that is very powerful but not so simplistically so that contradictions are trivially created. I think that your insistence on calling it omnipotence is poor semantics but whatever... The problem now is determining what powers God has. This is why theists have always stuck with their simplistic notions of God's omnipotence. Can God see all things at once? Can God predict the future? Can God know my thoughts? Can God even time travel?
A literal reading of the Old Testament would suggest that God's powers are very limited indeed. For instance, He had to question Adam and Eve about what they've done. Doesn't he already know? Was it a rhetorical question? The story made no sense and the book doesn't get any better from there...
Quote:
BUT ANYWAY, it all boils down to godamned belief (pun unintended)!
The basis of acceptance of God (or, as some would put it- The concept of A God) is the acceptance of the concept of omnipotence.
Which IMO, is beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals BECAUSE our ability of reasoning is only limited by what we can experience and draw conclusion from in this EARTH (our A priori and A posteriori knowledge).
In short, God is beyond our comprehension.
|
The problem with saying that some theory, like the existence or nature of God, is "beyond our comprehension" is that it's identical to an idea that is nonsensical and is thus beyond not just our comprehension but all comprehension. Instead of putting a great deal of effort into practicing something that hurts people and saying that it's beyond our comprehension but you're following it anyway, why not just save yourself and other people the trouble and admit that it's all nonsense and just live your life the best you can...
Quote:
Another argument point from a Theist’s POV:
How can you argue, or, seek to disprove, or, question against something that is beyond your comprehension?
A famous philosophy maxim that comes to mind is this:
We have the known knowns, the unknown knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.
God/His power/HIM/Pink apples lies in the lattermost category.
So why bother disproving? It’s really up to you whether you want to believe or not.
For those who WANT to believe, the signs are there, the words are there. If you feel they are not satisfactory, then so be it. Not my problem. It’s *your* prerogative.
So why is it people enjoy arguing about subjective issues?
|
Why do people like chocolate?
I don't think there's a single answer out there. People's motives are also subjective. Personally, I have many reasons for debating the subject, one of which is that I enjoy the sport of debate. I find the dissection of argument and the composition of cogent sentences fun. There are other reasons too, including the desire to convince you or someone, anyone really, of my point of view and alleviating some of the problems that religion causes on society...
---------- Post added at 02:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halanna
I don't know why these two groups argue, debate and try and prove their point. The point of an argument or debate is to sway the opposing side to see things your way.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's unlikely one on either side will suddenly concede and say, "You know, you're right. I'm going to abandon the belief system I've had since a child/the last 10 years/the last 20 years and start believing the way you do."
|
Why does it have to be sudden? Is debate only worth doing if the other person is suddenly convinced? Also, perhaps the few times that it does happen make it worth it? Is it really so hard to imagine why people would debate such topics?